US v. Alvin Hill, No. 09-4670 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4670 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN T. HILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00012-F-1) Submitted: April 16, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin T. Hill appeals from the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months of imprisonment, advisory guidelines range. a sentence above the On appeal, Hill does not challenge the district court s finding that he violated the conditions of his supervised release or the court s revocation of supervised release, but he contends his sentence was greater than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing and that the court failed to explain sufficiently its chosen sentence. Although advisory the sentencing sentence Hill guidelines We affirm. received range, applicable statutory maximum sentence. it is is above within the the Moreover, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not plainly err in its consideration of the statutory factors and its statement of its reasons for imposing an above-guidelines See United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th sentence. Cir. 2010) Carter, (providing 564 F.3d standard 325, 330 of (4th review); Cir. United 2009) States v. (requiring an individualized consideration of the sentencing factors as they apply to the defendant). We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard); see also United States v. 2 Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) ( In applying the plainly unreasonable standard, we first determine, using the instructions given in Gall[ v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007)], whether a sentence is unreasonable. ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
